So in other words, if documents have "news value" (i.e. someone wants to read them) and they have been leaked (the only examples he cites are Pentagon Papers and peanut butter memo), then publishing them is A-OK.
Both of those predicates are highly questionable in this case. In the first and most important instance, these are STOLEN documents, not leaked. By taking commercial advantage of these stolen documents TechCrunch is effectively profiting from theft.
And that someone (perhaps even many people) would like to read a document, i.e. it has news value, is not a valid ethical reason (forget legality) to breach privacy, much less profit from theft.
In my eyes, TechCrunch is little more than theft-condoning scum at this point.
Both of those predicates are highly questionable in this case. In the first and most important instance, these are STOLEN documents, not leaked. By taking commercial advantage of these stolen documents TechCrunch is effectively profiting from theft.
And that someone (perhaps even many people) would like to read a document, i.e. it has news value, is not a valid ethical reason (forget legality) to breach privacy, much less profit from theft.
In my eyes, TechCrunch is little more than theft-condoning scum at this point.